I threw my hands up decades ago when, compared to analogue, CD was claimed to have both 96 dB single to noise and dynamic range. Meaningful if you ignore analogue headroom or enjoy the calming constancy of -0.1 dBFS sine waves.
Sorry, but nearly nothing you wrote makes SENSE.
LOL! I dare to disagree even with Einstein, so why not with 2+2=4?
Please name the wrong assumptions step by step and prove your statement.
I can not see ghosts but I know I can "SENSE" them. LOL.
What a statement! Now I can prove everything, because I can sense it. I am better then Einstein!
You can NOT sense HF and you can NOT hear it. I made many blind tests with my friends and many other tests like this were made.
LOL! I dare to disagree even with Einstein, so why not with 2+2=4?
Please name the wrong assumptions step by step and prove your statement.
I can not see ghosts but I know I can "SENSE" them. LOL.
What a statement! Now I can prove everything, because I can sense it. I am better then Einstein!
You can NOT sense HF and you can NOT hear it. I made many blind tests with my friends and many other tests like this were made.
Agree with th very first reply....
Look, this is pretty pedantic. The very first reply gave the real situation: the ESS 9038 and similar DACs have a 32 bit architecture and give serious benefits from that. Is there any music with 32 bits and do they actually convert to a level of 2^32? No. But are they demonstrably superior in many ways to DACs with smaller internal architectures? yes - certainly in how i plan (well, hope) to use it.
You can do digital volume and all sorts of DSP without compromising the LSB. This is hugely valuable in some system designs.
Now will some end consumers be misled? Sure. But why oh why are consumers intent on specs they don't understand? Most would be far better off listening, reading reviews and choosing based on how they sound. An end consumer "DAC" (the entire box from serial in to analog out) is characterized much more by non chip elements (power supply, I/V, jitter, etc.) than by the chip itself or bit depth anyway.
And as for designers, tech hobbyists and other engineers? Well, we ought to read the datasheet and figure out what it does, just as you apparently have.
There is huge benefit to this community - why waste our bandwidth n meaningless stuff?
G
Look, this is pretty pedantic. The very first reply gave the real situation: the ESS 9038 and similar DACs have a 32 bit architecture and give serious benefits from that. Is there any music with 32 bits and do they actually convert to a level of 2^32? No. But are they demonstrably superior in many ways to DACs with smaller internal architectures? yes - certainly in how i plan (well, hope) to use it.
You can do digital volume and all sorts of DSP without compromising the LSB. This is hugely valuable in some system designs.
Now will some end consumers be misled? Sure. But why oh why are consumers intent on specs they don't understand? Most would be far better off listening, reading reviews and choosing based on how they sound. An end consumer "DAC" (the entire box from serial in to analog out) is characterized much more by non chip elements (power supply, I/V, jitter, etc.) than by the chip itself or bit depth anyway.
And as for designers, tech hobbyists and other engineers? Well, we ought to read the datasheet and figure out what it does, just as you apparently have.
There is huge benefit to this community - why waste our bandwidth n meaningless stuff?
G
Today "GPU" is also used for the whole graphics subsystem, which technically is composed of at least two parts: a specialised parallel processing unit (the GPU) that is usually agnostic to resolution, and a video controller, that reads out of a buffer and sends the pixels to a screen. This annoys me quite a bit, but, well, in the semiconductor industry, we often call it "the graphic card" even if it is a couple of usually not even close components in a larger SoC.